KARACHI, Sept 9: The Sindh High Court has issued summons to the defendants for filing written statement on Sept 20 in a suit for the recovery of more than Rs185 million on account of damages under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act of 1855.

The suit has been filed on behalf of Ms Kulsoom, widow of Dr Riaz Ahmad, and his two children by Nasir Maqsood, advocate, in which Liaquat National Hospital (LNH), Dr Haider Zaidi and Medicare Clinic (Pvt) Ltd have been made the respondents.

The suit pertains to the death of Dr Riaz Ahmad, who allegedly died on August 18, 2001 due to composite negligence on the part of the defendants in denying and refusing the treatment required to him.

The deceased, a research fellow and PhD in pharmacology, was an assistant professor at the University of San Francisco, California. He came to Pakistan to see his family on July 19, 2001. During his stay at Karachi on the night of August 18, 2001, he, with his brother Muhammad Umer (Attorney), his son Zain (plaintiff No 2) and his nephew Ashar, went in car No ADL-355 to collect his trousers from a tailor at Bahadurabad.

After collecting the trousers the deceased came back about nearly 9 O’clock and as soon as he sat in the said car, somebody came on his side and tried to hijack his car. The deceased put up resistance to the car hijackers which annoyed the culprit/assailant and he opened fire and escaped with his accomplice. Resultantly, the deceased suffered a bullet injury to his abdomen leaving him bleeding from there.

His brother Muhammad Umar immediately drove the injured Dr Riaz Ahmad with great difficulty to the nearest Medicare Hospital of the defendant No 3 on Shaheed-i-Millat Road which was a minute away from the place of occurrence.

The defendant No 4 who was a medical officer and in charge of emergency unit was on duty there and he allegedly refused to provide the required treatment to Dr Riaz to save his life, who was bleeding profusely but was fully conscious. His contention was that it was a medicolegal case which prevented him from touching the patient without compliance with legal formalities, and the management of the defendant No 3 had strictly warned the staff not to take such cases without their prior permission.

However, after persistence the respondent No 4 only agreed to dress his entry and exit wounds and attached a drip and instructed to shift the said deceased without wasting any time to the LNH or some other hospital. But he refused the use of ambulance to shift the injured to another hospital.

After consuming more than 15 minutes at Medicare Hospital without the required treatment, the injured was put in the rear seat of the car and was taken to the LNH (defendant No 1). As soon as the attendants drew the attention of the defendant No 2, who was in charge of the Emergency Department, to the said deceased, he allegedly refused treatment to the victim, and said his hospital did not treat such cases as it had clearly been prohibited by the defendant No 1 to attend to such medicolegal cases.

On this declaration by the defendant No 2, the said deceased shouted at doctors that he was a senior medical professional and how they were denying treatment to him, more so in a case when he had haemorrhage and was profusely bleeding, and asked the defendant No 2 to call his director so that he might talk to him and apprise him of his critical condition tending to take his life due to further complications and delay in the administration of necessary treatment. The brother of the deceased was also in touch with his niece Mrs Tasnim Moosa, assistant district & sessions judge, and he urged her to talk to the LNH administration to give treatment to the said deceased as his abdomen was ballooning from the loss of blood which could take away his life.

She immediately talked to the defendant No 2 and told him that she would meet all legal requirements and she requested him to shift his uncle, the said deceased, to an operation theatre and operate upon him. The defendant No 2 said he could not do anything without the prior permission of the medical director of the defendant No 1 who was untraceable at that time.

About more than half an hour lapsed in this argument between the defendant No 2 and the attendants while keeping the said deceased crying on a stretcher, but the defendant No 2 was allegedly adamant in declining the required treatment to the said deceased due to alleged medicolegal handicap.

After considerable loss of time and blood the victim was moved to another hospital where he died of cardiac arrest.

Holding the two respondent’s responsible for the death of the deceased the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree in the sum of Rs18,50,25,000 against the defendants jointly and severally to pay the said sum of damages/compensation to the plaintiffs or any other amount this court may deem fit, in circumstances of the case, along with profit/mark-up at the rate of 21 per cent per annum.